Firstly: nepotism in the Second Abbasid Era:

1- We mean by the collapse of the judicial authority that when its mission is no longer to achieve justice but to impose injustices, especially in cases that other factors led to such collapse apart from the main factors of tyranny and corruption of rulers.   

2- Among such factors is nepotism in appointing judges based on bribes or connections instead of knowledge and experience. This nepotism was practiced within the Abbasid caliphate by the caliphs and all their cronies, viziers, retinue members, etc. We have explained in a previous chapter how Harun Al-Rasheed appointed Abou Youssef as a judge and then the supreme judge. Abou Youssef himself had to appoint a corrupt man as a judge because he threatened Abou Youssef. With the passage of time, nepotism has become deeply rooted to the extent that corrupt viziers appointed their cronies and henchmen as judges. For example, the vizier Ibn Al-Furat, during the reign of the caliph Al-Moqtadir who was controlled by his mother, Shaghab, had appointed judges as many as he pleased, though Ibn Al-Furan, within the fierce struggle for appointing and dismissing viziers, was many times appointed and dismissed and imprisoned only to be re-appointed as a vizier. At one time, Ibn Al-Jawzy writes that the vizier Ibn Al-Furat had appointed a man named Abou Umayya as a judge (this judge died in 300 A.H.). This judge Abou Umayya was originally a silk merchant in Baghdad, and when he had hidden Ibn Al-Furat in his time of plight, Ibn Al-Furat decided to reward Abou Umayya when he was reappointed as a vizier. When Ibn Al-Furat asked him to choose a post to assume, Abou Umayya desired to be a scribe, a police officer, or a military leader, or anything that might serve the caliph and make him get nearer to him, but Ibn Al-Furat refused as such posts need certain expertise and training, and eventually, the illiterate unknowledgeable Abou Umayya agreed to be appointed as a judge in Basra. This tells us that judges were at the lowest rank at the time! Abou Umayya had no knowledge of laws, fiqh, and sharia at all, but he was very honest in companioned to other learned corrupt venal judges. Yet, Abou Umayya ended up in prison where he died, because of the conflicts and disputes between Ibn Al-Furat and another man who coveted his post and was appointed as a vizier instead, and this man dismissed all people appointed by Ibn Al-Furat, and when he realized that Abou Umayya was an illiterate ignoramus, he let him languish in prison. when Ibn Al-Furat managed to retrieve his post as a vizier, he knew that Abou Umayya died in prison, and he felt sad and wanted to appoint the son of Abou Umayya as the judge of Basra replacing his dead father as a type of compensation, but this son was mentally retarded, and Ibn Al-Furat had nothing left but to give this son some money (Al-Muntazim, 13/133 deaths of 300 A.H.).

3- In fact, the reign of Al-Moqtadir witnessed serious changes not only in the judicial authority, but also to many other aspects because of corruption that dominated everything because of the corrupt Shaghab that controlled the caliphate. Her corruption reached the extent that she pressurized Ibn Al-Bahloul,  who died in 318 A.H.,  to force him to hand over to her some documents of some Waqfs (religious endowments) so that she would forge them herself, and this was a serious precedent (Al-Muntazim, 13/292).

 

Secondly: bribes to buy posts and positions within the Mameluke Era:

1- Conditions of the judicial authority worsened for decades until men typically preferred, during the Mameluke Era, to stop pursuing their rights and to remain silent before injustices instead of seeking judges to offer their complaints. During the reign of the Mameluke sultan Barqoq, people began to bribe the sultan and his viziers and powerful men to get appointed in any posts, and the post of judges was no exception. A corrupt judge who bribed his way to be appointed as a judge tended to commit injustices to receive bribes in his turn to get back the sum of bribes he paid earlier. This led the judicial authority to maintain and spread injustices instead of achieving justice formally and officially, after this was done implicitly during the Abbasid Era because of nepotism, corruption, and tyranny.          

2- Al-Makrizi the historian was a witness to such serious changes in the 9th century A.H., as the reign of the Mameluke sultan Barqoq marked the era of the moral, economic, religious, and judicial degeneration, and Al-Makrizi criticized and commented on such corruption and degeneration in his book titled "Al-Solok". Al-Makrizi focuses in his book on the conditions and stories of religious scholars, as he was one of them, and he wished to reform them, but in vain, as subjects always imitated their sultans and rulers. Al-Makrizi tells us that during the reign of Barqoq, people paid and received bribes in public shamelessly to get things done, especially to be appointed in any high-rank and low-rank posts (from teachers of schools to judges), regardless of experience and knowledge, and this led to more corruption on all levels, according to Al-Makrizi.     

3- Al-Makrizi mentions in his account of the events of Ramadan in 825 A.H. during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Al-Ashraf Barsbay that the sultan Barsbay issued a decree that no religious scholars or clergymen must not sell their positions and jobs in return for money, under the pain of imprisonment and confiscation of possessions and money of violators. Al-Makrizi mentions that Barsbay desired to impose this reform, but he failed; as scholars temporarily  stopped taking bribes to give their posts/jobs (as sheikhs, teachers, keepers of Waqfs, etc.) to others who did not deserve them, and then violated the decree with impunity. Hence, the greedy masses undertook such jobs (in education, mosques, Waqfs, and in judicial authority) to hoard more ill-gotten money, and Al-Makrizi laments such degeneration.    

4- About fifty years after the era of Al-Makrizi, conditions and circumstances worsened more, as those who bribed their way to get their posts would make their sons inherit their posts and jobs, even if these sons were not qualified or educated. Hence, many underserving ignoramuses became judges in courts, and would issue fatwas and verdicts as per their whims as they felt not the need to spend years studying Sunnite sharia laws and fiqh! Thus, their unjust verdicts were mostly based on bribes taken from people coming to court. After about half a century, the judge and historian Ibn Al-Sayrafi wrote his historical accounts of the era of the Mameluke sultan Qaitbay day by day, recoding all events, especially related to al and social life as well as the scandals of judges and leaned scholars and sheikhs. We quote below some of his comments on the Mameluke Era judges and sheikhs of the 9th century A.H. 

A) The Malik-doctrine judge Ibn Sweid (died in 873 A.H.): he was filthily rich but lacked morality and ethics and was miserly, stingy man who hoarded and amassed heaps of money by taking bribes from all people, and he was beaten by others sometimes in the streets for his avarice and his stinginess, as he rarely spent money on his children and wife, and at one time, someone managed to find him guilty and imprisoned him and he was beaten and humiliated in prison. 

B) The judge Ibn Al-Hayssam (died in 874 A.H.): he was never inclined to 'Islam', as he was mostly influenced by Christians doctrines, and he was a drunkard who was found rarely sober, and one vizier at one time commanded his being beaten in public, three times, as a punishment to humiliate him for not attending the Friday congregational prayers. 

C) The judge Ibn Jana (died in 876 A.H.): when he died, he was survived by his two daughters, a sister, and two brothers; and they found that in his written will, he left all his money to his sister and daughters while depriving his two brothers from their due share of the inheritance! Ibn Al-Sayrafi expressed his astonishment that such behavior would occur by a judge.

D) Ibn Al-Sayrafi mentions that in 876 A.H., a judge in a rural area kidnapped a male child from his free parents and sold into slavery to some Bedouins, and when the child's parents knew his whereabouts and filed a complaint to the sultan Qaitbay to retrieve their boy, the sultan helped them and he commanded that this judge must be beaten severely in public with cudgels and then imprisoned.  

E) Some judges used his money and influence to gather around themselves the bullies and outlaws of the city or district to impose their authority within all people and to issue verdicts of incarceration and public beatings while they were at home and not in courts. One of the most famous of such judges was Mohey-Eddine Al-Halaby, who followed the Abou Hanifa doctrine, and the Egyptians called him "the foreign ram", and he imposed his influence and authority within the district where he worked to manage to punish wrongdoers and to issue verdicts and making people fear him and seek to please him with bribes, and he once established a market for his henchmen to sell goods for his profit but he lost this investment. The masses called him "the foreign ram" because of the dead unsold animals and cattle in his market and because he offered rams, with bribes, to high-rank officials to help him to become appointed as a judge. Mohey-Eddine Al-Halaby grew too powerful as if he ruled the district and no Mameluke officials managed to curb his influence and authority, as he received bribes, imposed tributes paid to him, imprisoned, ordered beatings, and publicly humiliated many people and everyone feared him very much, as his bullies and henchmen were heartless, brutal, and fierce. Public humiliation at the time including forcing the male victim to walk the streets without headwear for a certain period, a gross indecency and an insult at the time. Mohey-Eddine Al-Halaby was eventually imprisoned long his bullies and henchmen upon commands of the sultan Qaitbay when complaints filed against him increased and peace was too much disturbed. This means that the tyrannical unjust sultan Qaitbay was keen on achieving justice more than judges themselves; because of his punishment of Mohey-Eddine Al-Halaby, the supreme judge in Cairo at the time, who followed the Ibn Hanifa doctrine, issued a decree that no judges would issue verdicts or fatwas from their homes, as their presence in courts was of vital importance, but Ibn Al-Sayrafi writes his comment that no one paid heed to such a decree, as judges went on in tier injustices, receiving bribes, issuing verdicts as per their whims, and commanding the public humiliations, incarceration, and beatings of everyone!            

5- In 875 A.H., people witnessed some grave errors committed by judges, as we tackle them below.

A) On the 16th of the Hijri month of Jamady Al-Awwal, a rich woman died and she left much money and many Waqfs bearing her name, and a supreme judge in Cairo at the time, who followed the Ibn Hanifa doctrine, would manage these Waqfs as typically done at the time, but another supreme judge who followed the Al-Shafei doctrine attempted to manage the Waqfs himself (i.e., to gain ill-gotten money) instead of the supreme judge who followed the Abou Hanifa doctrine and would be no less eager to embezzle money of these Waqfs (N.B.: each of the four Sunnite doctrines had its supreme judge in Cairo during the Mameluke Era). The news of the dispute and conflict of both supreme judges reached the ears of the Mameluke sultan, and he prevented both men to assume responsibility of these Waqfs as they were both dishonest persons.    

B) During the Hijri month of Jamady Al-Akher, a judge who followed Al-Shafei doctrine, namely Salah-Eddine Al-Makini, was arrested and incarcerated when proven guilty of stealing money of certain Waqfs, and the Mameluke prince who headed the Hisbah police commanded him to return all the sums of money he stole so that he would be released from prison. When this judge lamented his being humiliated and imprisoned while he was a revered judge and a follower of Al-Shafei doctrine, the prince cursed him, told him that he did not deserve his being appointed as a judge, and cursed the one who took a bribe to appoint him as such. Al-Sayrafi then expresses his astonishment that judges presumed they had a 'right' to steal while expecting impunity! 

C) On the 23rd of the Hijri month of Shabaan, a supreme judge named Moheb-Eddine, who followed the Ibn Hanifa doctrine, went along with his son and some other followers to visit a dying high-rank sheikh in his death bed, who followed the Ibn Hanifa doctrine as well, and he had no inheritors at all. The supreme judge and the other visitors tried to convince the dying man to sell his high-rank job to the son of Moheb-Eddine and made him sign papers while he was half conscious and suffering the throes of death! When the sultan Qaitbay heard of such scandal the following day after the man died, he brought all these men and he verbally humiliated them in public and severely rebuked them because of their shameful deed, especially when they postponed the burial of the dead man to avoid being exposed. They humbly tried to apologize for the sultan, but he refused to accept their apologies and decided to punish them severely; he ordered their public humiliation and then their imprisonment, and they were not released until the secretary of the sultan became their mediator and urged the sultan to pardon them. Ibn Al-Sayrafi writes his comment that if judges would have feared God and respected His sharia laws, they would not have humiliated themselves in that manner and committed a sin to retain their authority, stature, and ranks.        

 

Thirdly: the Mameluke sultan Qaitbay gave all judges the sack and appointed himself as the only judge in 876 A.H.:

  The above incident, among others, drove Qaitbay to dismiss all judges from their posts as he lost all trust in them, and this means that he admitted that the judicial authority in Cairo at the time collapsed. Qaitbay appointed himself as the only judge in 876 A.H., but he could not combine this post along with the affairs of the rule, and he had to restore, after a while, all judges to their posts, and this gave them more power to go on committing injustices and to prevent justice from being ever achieved, and we give details below.

1- On the 21st of the Hijri month of Jamady Al-Awwal in 876 A.H., Qaitbay gathered all judges and scholars of fiqh and sharia laws in a meeting as he sought fatwas in relation to certain Waqfs of certain madrassas. Most of them disputed and talked harshly and loudly to one another before the sultan, verbally abusing one another, and accusing one another of being infidels and heretics because their opinions differed a lot. They exchanged accusations of receiving bribes, lack of knowledge, and corruption. The sultan left them while commanding their going on until they agree on the required fatwas. When Qaitbay returned to them the following day, he was amazed to see them still quarrelling loudly like ignorant masses. Eventually, the supreme judge of the Malik doctrine issued a fatwa that the military leader and sultan Qaitbay was more knowledgeable to issue a fatwa, more than any sheikhs or learned judges present at the time inside the palace. Qaitbay was infuriated and shocked as he realized that all of them were corrupt quarrelsome ignoramuses.       

2- On the 28th of the Hijri month of Jamady Al-Akher, in 876 A.H., Qaitbay commanded the four supreme judges in Cairo to come to the palace with few of their representatives to question them and discuss their conditions after he was shocked to know degenerate and ignorant they were. After that meeting, he issued a decree that no judge is ever to issue a verdict without the prior notification of the sultan to endorse all verdicts himself. All judges felt very humiliated and disgraced at the time by such a decree, including the historian and learned judge Al-Sayrafi who lamented such a deplorable event that made all judges crestfallen and depressed. The sultan began to question and test each judge individually in his palace, including Al-Sayrafi himself, who writes about how base, vile, venal, and ignorant most of the judges were and how they were frightened of the sultana and beseeched him to pardon them, and how Qaitbay treated them with utter contempt and disgust.      

3- Of course, people in Egypt seized the chance to seek to meet the sultan to voice their grievances and file their complains while trusting the (unusual) justice and firmness of the sultan, to the extent that on the 4th of the Hijri month of Rajab, the sultan procession had countless complaints filed by the well-off and affluent ones and also by the poor ones among the subjects, not merely against corrupt judges but even against corrupt and greedy high-rank governmental employees. Qaitbay punished severely all unjust and corrupt ones after verifying the authenticity of the filed complaints, and Ibn Al-Sayrafi mentions that Qaitbay treated the poor ones, who filed their complaints, kindly and charitably and helped them get their rights and gave them money from his own treasury. 

4- On the 10th of the Hijri month of Rajab, the problem of the Waqfs of the madrassa occurred, and the sultan had to interfere himself after he realized the helplessness of judges and he undertook the mission himself to solve the problem, and so as to avoid another scandal and headache of gathering all judges, he ordered the prompt bringing of only the four supreme judges, and as these supreme judges were brought to the sultan by high-rank guards taking them on foot within streets of Cairo, masses of people and even the rabble/mob mocked, cursed, and ridiculed the supreme judges on their way to the sultan. Of course, Qaitbay reproached the supreme judges severely and accused them of swindling, deceit, and telling lies. The Egyptian loved Qaitbay because of his stance against the judges, and at one time when he led the people in prayers as imam at one Cairene mosque, on the 17th of Rajab, after he inaugurated a free water fountain to the poor, people gathered around him to praise and laud him and to implore God to save his life and to prolong his years as a sultan.       

5- On the 22nd of the Hijri month of Rajab, Qaitbay dismissed all judges from their posts and assumed the judicial authority himself as the only judge in Cairo, in the citadel, while making criers roam the capital to urge and encourage people to take their cases to the sultan himself, within two days a week, on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Indeed, people went to the sultan on these days to make him issue fatwas and verdicts on almost everything related to sharia laws, complaints, and lawsuits, especially to remove injustices of high-rank and low-rank governmental officials, who lived such a period as if in a nightmare, s the sultan punished most of them severely. Yet, Ibn Al-Sayrafi mentions that the sultan was sometimes infuriated by people who had petty complaints, like a wife complaining that her husband mistreated her and got married to another woman, and the sultan verbally abused the woman and dismissed her at once from his presence. Petty complaints increased as much as grave and serious ones, and even any two men who would quarrel in a market would go to the sultan! This means that the sultan received cases and complaints regarding grievances resulting from injustices of governmental officials as well as related to sharia and fiqh (inheritance issues, personal status, marital problems, etc.).         

6- Qaitbay remained as the only judge in Cairo until the 10th of the Hijri month of Shabaan, and he felt he could no longer bear it; his last straw was his being deceived by a military leader that caused him to command public beating of a man, and when Qaitbay knew the man was innocent, he commanded the public beating of the military leader. Qaitbay restored all judges and supreme judges (though he despised them immensely) to their posts while making criers telling people not to seek the sultan as judge unless when proven injustices would be committed by judges. This means that Qaitbay made himself the last resort within the litigation process. Though the experience of the sultan-judge was short lived, but it was a serious unprecedented and unrepeated event in the history of Egypt after the Arab conquest of it.      

 

Lastly:

1- Egypt got rid of this theocratic Sunnite judicial authority when legislative and judicial reforms began in the 19th century A.D. within efforts to modernize Egypt, a mission undertaken by Muhammad Ali Pacha. All reforms on all levels must begin with the judicial reform, because any modern state must have its legal, legitimate entity first of all. These legislative and judicial reforms resulted into the formulation of the new civil and penal codes and the criminal law. But the theocratic Sunnite courts and judges were confined only to personal status laws and cases (problems of marriages, inheritance, Waqfs, etc.), until these Sunnite sharia courts were annulled by President Abdel-Nasser and made civil courts tackle their personal status cases. Hence, it was only then that Egypt eventually got rid of the Sunnite sharia laws and legislations that have founded injustices for centuries in the name of God's sharia. Yet the military tyrannical rule of Egypt has created new types of injustices because of the presence of tyrannical rule; thus, Egypt needs more legislative and judicial reforms to allow room to establish civil democracy that will protect and apply freedoms, human rights, human dignity, and social justice while being based on decentralized rule and separation of the three authorities: the legislative, judicial, and executive ones. This has not happened until now in Egypt; people there still suffer the collapse of the judicial authority because of the existence of tyranny and corruption.        

2- Within the obscurantist, backward, tyrannical and dark eras of the Abbasids and the Mamelukes, there were few exceptions of enlightened learned judges who were fair and just despite the presence of despotic sultans/caliphs; besides, there were those free scholars of fiqh who refused adamantly to assume the post of a judge because their dignity, honesty, and moral values prevented them from working within the despotic rule under unjust tyrants.  

3- Examples of such exceptions are tackled in the next chapters.